EA: we are only getting votes beause people are
homophobes

This is an invalid statement that does not follow from the quotes you cite. Your citations state that the Consumerist does not have any evidence of anyone voting based on an anti-LGBT agenda. It does not say that these votes are not being made. They cannot possibly know why anyone votes the way they do.

If there is such a campaign, the people involved in it have not reached out to us, nor have we seen evidence of this traffic to our pages. While any number of tech and video game sites and forums have been writing about and linking to the WCIA polls (here’s lookin’ at you /v/), our analytics show absolutely no incoming traffic from anything we’d label as political, let alone conservative.

What they're saying is that the people voting for EA are not redirected from a conservative anti-lgbt site.

If EA makes those claims, it's up to them to prove it.Consumerist merely stated that they have not seen evidence for these claims (lies) made by EA.

It's not about proving those people aren't voting, it's about proving EA's own claims, which they have failed to do this year as much as they failed to do it last year.

There was also no mention of any anti-LGBT reasons in the preliminaries, where anyone could sign up any company for whatever reason the wanted.

EA received hundreds of nominations from Consumerist readers this year, by far the most of any contender in the bracket, but not a single one mentioned anything about sexual orientation. Consumerist does not condone homophobia or hate speech of any kind, and our readers understand the Worst Company contest and nominate businesses based on their merits.

These are the reasons people gave for including them in the poll:

Actually, our analysis of the reasons for EA’s inclusion in last year’s finale makes no mention of Mass Effect 3 or SOPA. Instead, it looks at EA’s history of buying up smaller, successful developers with the intention of milking — and arguably ruining — the intellectual properties that made these acquired companies so attractive. It also discusses EA’s exclusivity deals on popular sports games, that some say effectively sets the bar for retail prices for the rest of the gaming industry.

Then there’s the issue of microtransactions, in-game purchases that EA has made no secret are at the center of its business model. Many customers believe that EA’s view of microtransactions isn’t to simply charge customers a little bit of money for something that is additional, but not integral, to the core game, but rather to put out broken or deliberately incomplete games with the ultimate goal of selling add-on content that should have been included in the $60 price tag to begin with.

There is absolutely no evidence for EA's claims that the people voting are doing it because they're homophobic.---PSN: El_Coon

#62clowningPosted 4/21/2013 1:01:08 PM

SoulTrapper posted...

clowning posted...

This is an invalid statement that does not follow from the quotes you cite. Your citations state that the Consumerist does not have any evidence of anyone voting based on an anti-LGBT agenda. It does not say that these votes are not being made. They cannot possibly know why anyone votes the way they do.

And EA can prove that those are the people voting for them, right?

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, or what you said in the relevant quote.

The quote of yours to which I was responding is not a valid conclusion, as I already explained. Obviously, EA does not know why any given person voted the way he/she did. If some people voted based on an anti-LGBT agenda, they would not know how many.

The Consumerist's lack of evidence is meaningless. It is a logical fallacy to assume that a lack of evidence indicates evidence of its opposite. This is why your concluding remark to which I was referring is invalid.---It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. ...one begins to twist facts to suit theories.... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

#63SoulTrapperPosted 4/22/2013 12:32:54 AM

clowning posted...

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, or what you said in the relevant quote.

The quote of yours to which I was responding is not a valid conclusion, as I already explained. Obviously, EA does not know why any given person voted the way he/she did. If some people voted based on an anti-LGBT agenda, they would not know how many.

The Consumerist's lack of evidence is meaningless. It is a logical fallacy to assume that a lack of evidence indicates evidence of its opposite. This is why your concluding remark to which I was referring is invalid.

You can't prove a negative. You can't prove people didn't vote out of homophobic reasons.

You can however prove, that people voted for other reasons, which is what The consumerist did by explaining all the reasons people gave when signing EA up for the poll.

And as they themselves said: they didn't receive ANY comments saying it was because of the inclusion of gay relationships. Which proves that the people signing up EA didn't do it because they were homophobic.

Yet EA is the one claiming that those are the people who voted for them without a shred of evidence, but you don't call them out for, now do you?

Here are the reasons people gave for including EA in the poll:

Instead, it looks at EA’s history of buying up smaller, successful developers with the intention of milking — and arguably ruining — the intellectual properties that made these acquired companies so attractive. It also discusses EA’s exclusivity deals on popular sports games, that some say effectively sets the bar for retail prices for the rest of the gaming industry.

Then there’s the issue of microtransactions, in-game purchases that EA has made no secret are at the center of its business model. Many customers believe that EA’s view of microtransactions isn’t to simply charge customers a little bit of money for something that is additional, but not integral, to the core game, but rather to put out broken or deliberately incomplete games with the ultimate goal of selling add-on content that should have been included in the $60 price tag to begin with.

In today’s post, Moore contends that microtransactions are okey-dokey because “tens of millions” of people are enjoying EA’s free-to-play games that include microtransactions. We’d counter that just because people are allowing you to nickel-and-dime them it doesn’t mean you should be doing it.

If there is such a campaign, the people involved in it have not reached out to us, nor have we seen evidence of this traffic to our pages. While any number of tech and video game sites and forums have been writing about and linking to the WCIA polls (here’s lookin’ at you /v/), our analytics show absolutely no incoming traffic from anything we’d label as political, let alone conservative.

EA received hundreds of nominations from Consumerist readers this year, by far the most of any contender in the bracket, but not a single one mentioned anything about sexual orientation. Consumerist does not condone homophobia or hate speech of any kind, and our readers understand the Worst Company contest and nominate businesses based on their merits.

All the evidence that there is points out that there was not the reason why they got voted worst company in america. Yet they claim that it was without a shred of evidence.---PSN: El_Coon

#64clowningPosted 4/22/2013 5:28:25 AM

SoulTrapper posted...

You can however prove, that people voted for other reasons, which is what The consumerist did by explaining all the reasons people gave when signing EA up for the poll.

No you can't, at least not sufficiently to make your claim that no one voted due to anti-LGBT reasons.

And as they themselves said: they didn't receive ANY comments saying it was because of the inclusion of gay relationships. Which proves that the people signing up EA didn't do it because they were homophobic.

Logical fallacy, once again. You are making the same logical error. Lack of evidence does not prove its opposite. Just because no one who comments says anti-LGBT was their reason, does not mean no one voted for that reason. Nor does it mean that people who do comment but do not mention LGBT do not also have an anti-LGBT agenda fueling their vote.

Yet EA is the one claiming that those are the people who voted for them without a shred of evidence, but you don't call them out for, now do you?

Again, this is irrelevant to my discussion with you. As i stated already, EA obviously cannot know how many, if any, people vote for LGBT reasons. However, this has nothing to do with your invalid statement to which I was originally referring.

In short, you are correct to point out that EA cannot know why everyone voted the way they did (this is now the third time I say this, because apparently once was not enough for you). But you are wrong in concluding that people did not vote for LGBT reasons, because, like EA, you do not know. Your incorrect conclusion which I first quoted a couple days ago is what I am discussing. Why is this hard for you to understand?---It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. ...one begins to twist facts to suit theories.... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

#65SoulTrapperPosted 4/22/2013 1:02:35 PM

You seem to have forgotten what you were trying to refute to begin with:

clowning posted...

DraconisRex posted...

So, no traffic from the conservative political sites.

This is an invalid statement that does not follow from the quotes you cite. Your citations state that the Consumerist does not have any evidence of anyone voting based on an anti-LGBT agenda. It does not say that these votes are not being made. They cannot possibly know why anyone votes the way they do.

Which has been clearly refuted by the consumerist in the article posted.

clowning posted...

No you can't, at least not sufficiently to make your claim that no one voted due to anti-LGBT reasons.

Then prove it. Prove that there were homophobic sites encouraging people to vote in the poll.

Logical fallacy, once again. You are making the same logical error. Lack of evidence does not prove its opposite. Just because no one who comments says anti-LGBT was their reason, does not mean no one voted for that reason. Nor does it mean that people who do comment but do not mention LGBT do not also have an anti-LGBT agenda fueling their vote.

Again, prove it.

What you're saying is the equivalent of saying "aliens visited earth because you can't prove that they didn't".

Again, this is irrelevant to my discussion with you. As i stated already, EA obviously cannot know how many, if any, people vote for LGBT reasons. However, this has nothing to do with your invalid statement to which I was originally referring.

In short, you are correct to point out that EA cannot know why everyone voted the way they did (this is now the third time I say this, because apparently once was not enough for you). But you are wrong in concluding that people did not vote for LGBT reasons, because, like EA, you do not know. Your incorrect conclusion which I first quoted a couple days ago is what I am discussing.

The Consumerist has clearly stated that there was no traffic being redirected from homophobic or political sites.If you go and make the claim that people did vote because of homophobia, it's up to you to prove that they did.Since, once again, you can't prove a negative.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?---PSN: El_Coon

#66SedatedPosted 4/22/2013 1:17:10 PM

Soultrapper is right. You're both arguing semantics at this point but Soul is more right.

You can't just make wild accusations, and parade them as truths simply because you can't prove it doesn't exist. If we used this logic we would be able to make all kinds of insane statements.---NegiBozu203 posted...Facts don't mean **** to me.

#67LordPonchoPosted 4/22/2013 1:38:18 PM

Sedated posted...

Soultrapper is right. You're both arguing semantics at this point but Soul is more right.

You can't just make wild accusations, and parade them as truths simply because you can't prove it doesn't exist. If we used this logic we would be able to make all kinds of insane statements.

I stopped paying attention. The argument turned from he said she said onto youccan't prove what they say is true. Who cares? They still said it (in a way, though it wasn't as cut and dry as you guys make it sound.)---"lol der was a shdow on my carpet but ti looked like a stane and tried to clen it up but ti was a shadoow" -Ghost4800